Monday, September 16, 2013

The guy's put 'sex' back into the limp Sensex. That makes him seriously hot. So hot, in fact, he has made it to the Amul hoarding (a first for a chap in his lofty position). But nobody is calling the man a Billboard Bimbo. You know why? Because this man knows his onions…

Firstly… Why the hell is a Shobhaa De crap being featured in the Economic Times????

That's just the opening paragraph. Most of the article is filled with similar nonsense. I don't know why anyone expects anything sensible from this C grade porn writer, but it is absolutely SHOCKING (and rather disturbing) when people appreciate such crap. Some even go ahead and DEFEND this filth [Link]!

Here are some bits (sic) from Shobhaa De's 'article':

the very dishy Raghuram Govinda Rajan.

That his chiselled features are as sharp as his brain, add to his current status as the Poster Boy of Banking.

I went ahead and tweeted (will this woman never learn?) about his appointment, calling him the Ranbir Kapoor of Banking (note the spelling — banking, there's an 'a' in this word, not an 'o').

We desperately needed eye candy on the pink pages — and now we have it! To my friends in media, I say — flog Raghu mercilessly. Run his pictures every day. We'd rather look at this pin-up boy, than Sunny Leone.

'Feisty at Fifty' could well be the title of Raghu's memoir (I'd be delighted to publish it). Till he writes his own story, we can salivate from the sidelines.

We'll be watching you — every move you make, every step you take. Make sure you don't drop that towel, like Ranbir Kapoor did in Sawaariya. On the other hand..... aahhhhh.... wishful thinking!

Questions to all you FEMINISTS out there:

Would you tolerate similar comments being put up by a male columnist about someone like Chanda Kochhar OR any other reasonably good looking successful woman (in government or the corporate world)?

Wouldn't you point out just how pathetic and sexist the column was and how it represented the filthy male mind?

Wouldn't you be protesting that men simply can't see beyond the body/face/attire when it comes to women?

Wouldn't you be yelling that men are pigs and need to be taught how to respect a woman as a human being?

Wouldn't you insist (with that shrill voice) that men should learn to appreciate a woman's mind and treat her as an equal and not as a piece of meat?

Wouldn't you DEMAND an apology from the columnist and link it to every published rape/molestation case in recent history?

And they call me a sexist (*rolling eyes)! You accuse me of double standards!? HA!

I assure you - our economy is NOT dependent on individuals OR on global cues (not as much as the media and politicians would have you believe), irrespective of what gets reported.

Like any other economy, ours too depends on policy and investments and more specifically investment policies.

Individuals making intelligent investments tend to do well... not only for themselves, but for the economy as a whole.

Intelligent investment policies... have become rare (unfortunately). Policies and bills that get implemented with 'retrospective effect' don't exactly instill confidence in the investor.

That is when our policy makers regret their idiotic decisions and seek to undo the damage by reversing their own decisions and amending the policies.

What they don't realise is, this makes things worse. The intelligent investor now has more questions and fears. Primarily - 'How can I be sure that you will not revert again? Clearly you have no problem in reversing your own bill or amending it. You could very well - at a later stage, reverse these new amendments as well'.

THAT is why you see the seesaw effect. NOT because of individuals, but because of policies being implemented (with retrospective effect) to appease a certain section of the coalition... and THEN reversing those same policies to control the damage caused by said idiotic policy.